A Language for "The Package"

[masqueradeball]

I've really been thinking about SIM play a lot lately and one thing that struck me is that creating a group language for how define a package might be a good thing to do. Now, the standard approach, as I see it, is a rather broad handed gesture to a lot of source material, maybe with an emphasis on few key sources (at least in SIM games that draw their influences from fiction). The idea is to use statements (still supported by example) as a way to describe the package as concisely as possible:

Here are some ideas:

Conceits: These would be the things that are taken for granted within in the genre and are therefore non-negotiable. Sacred Cows might be another term. An example from comics might be "Some people are good." This might seem like a rather vague statement, but in comics, a character like Superman or Batman will never be evil. Any wrong they do is in a misguided effort to do an be good. Of course, this Conceit comes along with other implied Conceits about morality, but thats just a quick example of what I mean.
Conventions: Similar to Conceits, but less tangible, conventions are those things that have to do more with the way characters and actions are portrayed. A Convention in superhero comics might read "Physical Realities Mirror Moral Truths." What this means is that to an extent, light, beauty, etc... can be associated with good and ugliness, darkness, etc... can be associated with evil. It also means that "might makes right" in the earlier, medieval sense, that the side that is righteous will prevail in just combat. The reason this is a Convention and not a Conceit is because its less tangible in terms of actual character behavior and more negotiable.
Color: Color would include those things that are non-central but highly suggestive of the package. A piece of superhero color might be "Brightly Colored Costumes" and their ilk (Masks, Capes, etc...).

Any thoughts on how to better refine this. I know its really rough but it might be a good tool in working out how to achieve something better with SIM play, which, in my opinion, has no real "State of the Art" and is quite frankly, behind the times, and since I'm a devout SIM player, I'd love to see what the cutting edge might be for SIM in the future.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Can you put it into the context of a possible actual game to design? Even if it's merely a thought-experiment, you could provide a game idea you could apply it to. It'll help the discussion quite a bit.

Me, I envision a game about female human assassins in a fantasy setting which is mainly inhabited by humanoid froggy-type guys. No kidding. Lots of curved daggers, skilled stealth and combat, and spurting ichor.

Best, Ron

[masqueradeball]

Okay, lets try this. I'm currently designing a game that originally was about pirates but quickly expanded to be about outlaws as a character/genre type, I'd call it "outlaw fiction" and its very similar to pirate fiction but would, to an extent, include various other archetypes.

What are some examples of outlaw fiction: Most of Tarantino's films and a few other outlaw movies, most pirate themed or inspired settings (including space and futuristic pirates), almost all "caper" films (like the Usual Suspects or Luck Number Sleven), a large number of westerns, etc... The problem is, while I clearly recognize the Outlaw archetype, he's rarely the star of the show. In my game at least, to be an Outlaw means that the character is a) purposefully outside of mainstream society and b) has no desire to rejoin or recreate mainstream society c) is often, but not always, part of a counter or subculture, but these do not define him and finally d) he is ultimately amoral, his iconoclasm is not a statement or a forced state of exile...

The problem with using outlaw fiction as an example though for building a lexicon is that its too broad and too unclear (although its something I recognize, I don't know that I could point any concrete examples of the type, as most outlaws features prominently in fiction are given a moral or villainous overtone that corrupts the concept).

I think defining somethings a little bit more specific and recognizable would be easier to do as a group-effort. Maybe Film Noir, or Cthulu Horror, or Sword and Sorcery, since these are all genres/SIM packages I've seen discussed on The Forge previously.

[Rich F]

The problem with using outlaw fiction as an example though for building a lexicon is that its too broad and too unclear

This isn't a problem, it just means that you need to use a more specific definition, to narrow your sights.  In the superhero genre you have Superman, Batman, Punisher, X-Men which is far too broad to be able to share much of a meaningful lexicon.  Even if you narrow to street / human / vigilante level, Batman and Punisher have no real meaningful crossover.  Building a lexicon requires a specific focus.

[masqueradeball]

The way I see it, Batman and Punisher both share some very essential points: 1) They don't kill people, 2) They're motivated by revenge, 3) They do things that in the real world would be impossible (most significantly, they are capable of maintaining a vigilante persona over an extended period of time with out being incarcerated or killed), etc...

The idea with creating a language would be to divide things that need to be true to support the genre as oppossed to things that should be true if traditionally presenting as opposed to things that are normally true but not necessary, etc...

As far as outlaw fiction, in my game (Rogue Bounty), there's a very specific definition of what must be true, but right now there's no discussion of any thing on the  side of the games core conceits (you an outlaw, as described in my last post, and that your seeking treasure (the definition of "treasure" varies from game to game based of group discussion).

[David Berg]

Nolan,
Personally, I think a challenging case like Rogue Bounty might be a perfect way to test some new terms.  Conceits, Conventions, Color?  I think we can talk about all of these with your outlaw fiction.

But hey, maybe you're right, and we should start with an easier example.  Can you provide one for a simpler game idea you have? 

If you want me to throw my own Indiana Jones/X-Files/Hellblazer/Cthulhu game onto the example floor, just lemme know...

[masqueradeball]

Sure we, can use Rogue Bounty as an example. Hell, talking about it more would definitely be a good thing. I played the fourth play test game last night and introduced a number of changes, so its definitely been on my mind a lot.

Okay, so right now I think I have it thusly:

Outlaws are people who exist outside of mainstream society, but who are not totally iconoclastic. They strive to earn power on their own terms without compromising themselves, which often means clinging to those character traits which others find the most reprehensible. My problem with finding these characters in film and literature is that they all sort of make a reversal on their positions... Take Malcolm Reynolds, from Firefly/Serenity. Through out the show he's a perfect example of the Rogue Bounty PC, but the movie violates this somewhat by having him deny himself for the greater good.
In my system, which I'm actively trying to make non-Narrativist, his decision in "The Train Job" to return the loot would of constituted a failure on a mechanical/player rewards level. The game rewards players for having their character ignore or overcome their own feelings, morales, beliefs, whatever to maintain in control of their own destinies.
I guess then, that I could sight Jane (from the same show/movie) as a better example, but doing so seems somehow off, because the games original intent is to be sort of light hearted, and having a table full of (mostly) ruthless mercenaries doesn't work. There's just a line with all most all of these characters that takes them out of the "outlaw" mode and into something else, and that line isn't supposed to be crossed in the game.
Note that the games structure right now is that the players all hunting The Treasure, which can be anything, even, in Serenity's case, "Information that Could Shatter the Alliance," but this would be "variant play" and obviously breaks from the easiest and most literal interpretations of the term.
So I would say that's where I'm at with Conceits.

Conventions would be things like the type of characters available, for instance, that the game is suppose to be rather swashbuckling. I'd list this as a convention because as long as the majority of the players go for physical, action oriented and at least slightly romantic characters the game maintains the appropriate feel. I'd also say its a Convention for Rogue Bounty in that its less supported by the system (which is supposed to "feel" swashbuckle-y but doesn't
directly reward such play).

Color is a funny thing. I originally designed the game as a sort of present to my girlfriend who loves pirates, so I tried to figure out, for me, what makes pirates pirates and how I could make a game out of it, and the system grew from there, but I found I could drop almost all of the pirate color (historical setting and location, sailing, actual criminal activity even...) and the system would still apply rather directly to what felt like a recognizable character/story type.The game however still supports this color slightly in some of its terminology (the game uses cards which are "sunk" (set on their sides) to show that they've already been used in a scene, for instance).

Still, I think I've failed to convey Conceits or Color clearly to one player and I'm unsure of how clearly everyone grasps the games Conventions.

By the by, the superhero thing isn't entirely unrelated to actual play. I can't think of a single game I've ran in a superhero setting where the players didn't really disappoint my sense of "what its all about" in super hero comics. I almost want to create a point system and say "At least this many things must be true about your character before they fit into this game," but that kind of thing seems like it wouldn't win friends or for that matter, positive results.

P.S. Under the Punisher/Batman thing it should say 1) Does not kill innocents, as Punisher obviously kills criminals.

[Marshall Burns]

I like "Conventions" and "Conceits."  But I don't like "Color" for this purpose; might I propose "Leitmotifs" instead?  Or is that too weird?

I also don't like "the Package."  There's gotta be a better word for this, something more unequivocal.

I also desperately need this sort of language for my game Fantastical Adventure; I have been grasping at straws to explain what it's about.  Thanks for bringing this up, Nolan.

-Marshall

[masqueradeball]

Sure, I think "motif" might be direct enough as a term to replace color, as for "the package," I sort of agree with you in as much as I play with a group that can't read "Starting Package" in the D&D books with out making a penis joke.

So, what's fantastical adventures about? What concepts are you trying to pin down?

[David Berg]

Okay, I'm gonna take a stab at labeling Rogue Bounty with some terms that I find useful:

Conceit: A framework and context for play, without which play is not just vague, but hopelessly rudderless.  This has two sub-types:

Fictional Conceit: About how the gameworld exists.  In RB: The Treasure exists.  The PCs operate in relation to a society that (a) defines behavioral "norms" in a way that is familiar to the players, and (b) has a familiar level of adherence to these norms, with severe deviation being rare.  Other defining features of the setting as it will play also go here -- level of technology, availability of resources, etc.

Functional Conceit: About how the gameworld works, i.e., how PC actions affect it.  In RB: an action movie, where real-world physics provide the template, and are never violated to a severe degree, but can be violated subtly when it's exciting to do so.

Protagonists: The behavior patterns the players will explore directly (by playing PCs of these types) or indirectly (by playing PCs who are noteworthy for how they differ from these types).  A sort of character measuring stick.  In RB: swashbuckling pirates, western cowboys, and other self-made, self-reliant types who are above all else true to their own image and values.

Taboos: If you do these with your character, you're playing the game wrong.  In RB: giving up adventuring, being invariably malleable and yielding.

Conventions: What kinds of things tend to happen in play?  What are some activities that represent play well?  In RB: planning and executing heists, running from the law, fist fights, flirting.

Motifs: Color beyond the central conceit, that gives play its distinctive personality.  In RB: dust, scurvy, giant revolvers, feats of marksmanship, feathered hats, obedient horses, gambling, unlikely athletic feats, witty insults, cold stares, no peg legs, no parrots, no silly pirate accents.

References: Narrative fiction or non-fiction that helps players fill in any blanks and find inspiration.  Movies, TV series, comic books, novels, etc.  In RB: Captain Blood, Scaramouche, Firefly, Silverado, Die Hard.

Obviously this post is more about the categories than about Rogue Bounty (Nolan, please substitute correct elements in your head for the ones I made up here).  What do you think of these categories as conceptual distinctions?  I suggest we focus on hammering out some distinctions first, and not worry too hard about what we're calling them -- we can always re-name at the end.  If my terms suck, I hope that won't be a distraction.

[masqueradeball]

I really like your categories. When I have more time I think I'm going to write an opening chapter to Rogue Bounty using your terms to see if I can convey what I want from the game. If I have to modify anything while writting the chapter, I'll let that feedback into terms, redifining them. When I'm done I'll put a link up here and some notes on the insights it gave me.

Marshall, if your still following, it would be a cool exercise if you'd do something similiar with your setting, to see if these terms are flexible to be functional for two potentially different designs.

David, same to you, if you have any setting game (and the time) to run through the terminology, it'd be neat to see how the terms would play out in real practice.

[Marshall Burns]

Okay, I'ma take a swing at it using the labels that David has just suggested, to see what I can do with 'em.  Here goes nothing:

Conceit:  Unlikely and exciting adventure in a fictionalized Victorian Era, inspired by penny dreadfuls and later pulp fiction.

The Fictional Conceit:  We're looking at a colorful, anachronistic, and fantasized version of the Victorian Era, with some hyperbolized technology (up to and including steam-powered giant robots, motorcars, rockets to the moon, and aeroplanes), magic that works, and a world of high adventure for exceptional persons where there's never a dull moment.  Also, things happen that we real people would find humorous or even ridiculos, but the characters take it very seriously ("My God!  That mechanical ape is trying to kidnap the Queen!"); it's the way of the world to them.

Functional Conceits:  Technology, magic, and physics work sort of vaguely, and their workings can be subverted when the result is exciting (and occasionally humorous).  Swashbuckling maneuvers from the full range of "Have at you" and "Avast ye mateys" really work.  Technical inaccuracy is perfectly fine when it drives the scene forward ("I pull the emergency anchor release lever!").  Rapier wit can be just as effective as an actual rapier when dealing with adversaries.  There is no functional difference between physical ways you hurt someone; whether you did it with a cannon or your fist, it's still just a "hit."  Pursuing ambitions provides people with the drive to accomplish nearly anything, but old ambitions must be abandoned to take on new ones.  Close bonds between people can pull them out of nearly any trouble, but old bonds must be broken to create new ones (yes, Ron, I stole that from your review of Dead Meat).

Protagonists:  The protagonists are (usually) the aforementioned Exceptional Persons (occasionally a normal person becomes wrapped up in an adventure, usually becoming an Exceptional Person themself).  Their range is actually pretty broad:  swashbuckling pirates are there, and witch doctors, and immortal Chinese sorcerors, and treasure-hunters extraordinaire, and mad doctors, and master detectives, and big-game hunters, and shootists; basically, any manner of exceptional person who leads an exceptional life of danger, intrigue, and adventure.

Sometimes protagonists become antagonists; it's alright to suddenly switch roles, or to be revealed as having been, all along, the nefarious Doctor Fu Manchu! (or some such thing).

Taboos:  These characters never back down from adventure; they always plunge headlong into it.  Also, they will not hesitate to drop an ambition if something bigger (due to monetary gain, or saving the Queen, or whatever the character finds important) comes along.

Conventions:  Treasure hunts; international intrigue (especially involving the kidnapping of a foreign dignitary); scientists carrying out dangerous, inhuman experiments on secluded islands; traveling the world by balloon/submarine/rocket/a combination thereof; crime and vigilante justice carried out in the gas-lit night while wearing masks and/or dramatic costumes; long, elaborate swordfights covering a large area of terrain; exploring dangerous wilderness, full of undiscovered wild beasts and/or savage natives.

Motifs: Forbidden cities, zeppelins, pterodactyls, cavalry sabers, Vikings and/or mastodons preserved in ice (and being alive when they thaw out), Gatling guns, mummies' curses, Mayan centipede gods, abominable snowmen, giant condors, volcano cults,  voodoo queens, nitroglycerine, clockwork, privateers, conspiracies against the Crown, ironclads, nosferatu, mad science, jazz music, inadvisable magic, cigar-shaped rockets, mole people, Gypsies, army ants, opera capes, domino masks, sunken and/or buried treasure, masquerade balls, dangerous liaisons in the night.

References:  Old science fiction like Jules Verne and HG Wells, the Allan Quatermain books, the Reverend Dr. Syn books, all those Errol Flynn swashbuckling flicks, Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the novel The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, a variety of pulp (esp. EC) comics that I can't remember the specifics of any more (just vague, general images and ideas), pulp stories about protagonists like Doc Savage (and also the Indiana Jones character derived from him), the DC Comic The Phantom, the film Yellowbeard, and the show The Venture Bros. (to an extent, and also to an extent the show it derives most heavily from:  Johnny Quest)

I'm not sure if that's any more clear than my usual rambling way of describing it.  Someone let me know.

Nolan,
I'm getting a strong The Wild Bunch or The Way of the Gun vibe from your Rogue Bounty (which seems pretty cool to me); would you say this is accurate?  I mean, yeah, there's not really any swashbuckling in those films, but I think the elaborate gunfights might qualify as a variant.

Also, are you familiar with the concept of the "Natural Outlaw" as featured in William S. Burroughs' books The Place of Dead Roads and The Western Lands (and also explored in most of his other books, but not by name)?  The Natural Outlaw rebels against all forms of CONTROL, up to and including the so-called Laws of Nature, because he considers it an admirable thing to do.  Freedom from CONTROL is his goal for its own sake (I consider the two films I just mentioned to touch on this too).  I'm not saying that your game is about that, but that I'd be tempted to run it that way...

-Marshall

[David Berg]

Marshall,
Not sure how well versed I am on your usual style of rambling, but I feel like that gave me a relatively useful vision of the game relatively efficiently. 
I think another big question is whether you felt the categories were helpful to you as you were writing that.  Did they help you organize your thoughts?  Did they make you ponder new issues?  Did the delineations make sense, or seem arbitrary?  Was there anything you had to shoehorn in for lack of an appropriate category?  Is there anything important left out?

[masqueradeball]

Still not enough time to really write up my Rogue Bounty version, but in response to Marshall's questions, Westerns, though they came to mind, we're sort of on the fringe of my thought processes when writing the game. Things that did come up besides pirates were vikings, war profiteers in various eras and traditional dungeons crawlers if you drop the "we kill them and take there stuff because they're evil" bit. Now that I think about it though, the traditional Western hero makes a great example of the kind of character I'm looking for. Thanks also for the Burrough's suggestion, I'll look into it...

[Marshall Burns]

I think another big question is whether you felt the categories were helpful to you as you were writing that.  Did they help you organize your thoughts?  Did they make you ponder new issues?  Did the delineations make sense, or seem arbitrary?  Was there anything you had to shoehorn in for lack of an appropriate category?  Is there anything important left out?

David,
The "Taboos" section really made me have to think, which is, I expect, a good thing.  I also had to do a lot of mental dis-entangling, as many of these separate concepts were intertwine pretty closely in my own thinking, and I think that's a good thing too.

Nolan,
You know what I've always found the coolest thing about Vikings?  When they get home after going a-viking, they go back to their ordinary jobs of farming, tending cattle, fishing, and such.

But that's a tangent.

-Marshall